Ex Parte Bhatia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201811369397 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/369,397 03/07/2006 Rishi Bhatia 063170.2693 3566 106095 7590 03/02/2018 Baker Botts LLP/CA Technologies 2001 Ross Avenue SUITE 700 Dallas, TX 75201 EXAMINER OHBA, MELLISSA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PTOmaill @bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RISHI BHATIA, MATTHEW J. SCHULZE, JOHN M. TOMASZEWSKI, ROBERT B. KITTREDGE, and DAVANUM SRINIVAS Appeal 2017-0080401 Application 11/369,397 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify CA, Inc. as the real party in interest. See Br. 1. Appeal 2017-008040 Application 11/369,397 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ disclosure relates to “a flexible, robust manner for providing data transformation functionality that may utilize web services offered within a network.” Spec. 3:4-6. Claims 1,10, and 19 are independent, and claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphases added): 1. A method for transforming data, comprising: receiving an object definition having one or more elements as a repeating child element and one or more elements as a reusable data transformation; detecting that a user dragged the repeating child element of a source file to multiple parent elements of a target file; in response to detecting that a user dragged the repeating child element to multiple parent elements, creating one or more user-specified mappings between the dragged repeating child elements of the source file and the parent elements of the target file, wherein the one or more user-specified mappings are based, at least in part, upon dragging and dropping a source object into a program palette and mapping the source object to the repeating child element; detecting that the user dragged one or more reusable data transformations to a parent element, wherein the one or more reusable data transformations provide frequently used data outputs from a data source; parsing a web service description, the web service description providing a transformation of a source file to a target file, wherein the web service description is based, at least in part, upon the object definition, the one or more user-specified mappings, and the one or more reusable data transformations; creating a repeating child element list upon parsing a repeating element; generating automatically, based on parsing the web service description, a web service definition that specifies a web service'. 2 Appeal 2017-008040 Application 11/369,397 generating, based on the information, a script to implement the defined transformation by invoking the web service; storing the script; receiving a request to execute the script on the source file; initiating execution of the script; and as part of executing the script: transmitting a service request to the web service, wherein the service request requests transformation of input data obtained from the source file according to the information; receiving a service response from the web service, wherein the service response includes output data, the output data including transformed input data; and writing the output data to the target file. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-7 and 9-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ingersoll (US 2004/0025117 Al; Feb. 5, 2004) and Paoli (US 7,275,216 B2; Sept. 25, 2007). Final Act. 2. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ingersoll, Paoli, and Darugar (US 2003/0018661 Al; Jan. 23,2003). Final Act. 15. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous, because “the Ingersoll-Paoli combination does not disclose, teach, or suggest each and every claim element recited in Claim 1.” Br. 11. Particularly, Appellants contend as follows: [the cited references’] description of how a transformation is made and the concept of dragging and dropping an icon on a display does not disclose “creating one or more user-specified mappings between the dragged repeating child elements of the 3 Appeal 2017-008040 Application 11/369,397 source file and the parent elements of the target file” “in response to detecting that a user dragged the repeating child element to multiple parent elements,” as recited in Claim 1. Br. 11-12 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds Ingersoll teaches a user interface having a receiving party as the “user” to provide the recited “user specified mappings.” Ans. 2-3 (citing Ingersoll ^ 50). The receiving party of Ingersoll, however, is not a “user” but an element of a spreadsheet. See Ingersoll Fig. 15. Further, we find no explanation by the Examiner how these spreadsheet elements could provide any type of mapping between “repeating child elements of the source file and the parent elements of the target file” as required by the claim. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Appellants additionally argue the Examiner erred because the “Ingersoll-Paoli combination does not disclose, teach, or suggest” the limitation “detecting that the user dragged one or more reusable data transformations to a parent element, wherein the one or more reusable data transformations provide frequently used data outputs from a data source.” See Br. 10-11. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument, as the Examiner’s findings appear to be devoid of any discussion of this limitation. “[OJbviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Inti Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003).2 2 We also note we cannot find any discussion of the limitation of “generating automatically, based on parsing the web service description, a web service definition that specifies a web service” in the Examiner’s findings. 4 Appeal 2017-008040 Application 11/369,397 Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 19 commensurate in scope (see Br. 11), and all claims dependent thereon. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-19. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation